SUSY in di-tau final states · MC samples Sample Cross section Events used Luminosity correspond...

SUSY in di-tau final states

CMS France 1st April 2010

CEA Saclay, Paris

Yoshinari MikamiIPHC / CNRS Strasbourg

Ulrich Goerlach, IPHC / Universite de Strasbourg

Brief outline● Strasbourg has interests in di-tau final states.

(Just replaced pairs or e pairs with pairs in the golden mode.)

● Outline

– Basic distributions (still in 10TeV MC)

– Event selection optimization test

– ABCD method test

– Status summary

~

0 ~

~0

2

1

2

p

q

q~

q~e.x)

p

q

l ll ~

~

~

MC samples Sample Cross section Events used Luminosity correspond

LM0 110 pb 203 k 1.8 fb-1

LM1 16.1 pb 105 k 6.5 fb-1 LM2 2.4 pb 130 k 54 fb-1

LM3 11.8 pb 153 k 13 fb-1

LM4 6.7 pb 110 k 16 fb-1

LM5 1.9 pb 172 k 88 fb-1

LM6 1.3 pb 134 k 105 fb-1

LM7 2.9 pb 82 k 28 fb-1

LM8 2.9 pb 211 k 74 fb-1

LM9 11.6 pb 200 k 17 fb-1 LM10 6.6 pb 203 k 31 fb-1

LM11 3.2 pb 208 k 64 fb-1

ttbar 317 pb 1.0 M 3.0 fb-1

WJets 40000 pb 9.2 M 0.23 fb-1

ZJets 3700 pb 1.3 M 0.34 fb-1

QCDHt100to250 15 b 12.7 M 0.8 pb-1

QCDHt250to500 400 nb 5.1 M 13 pb-1

QCDHt500to1000 14000 pb 4.7 M 0.33 fb-1

QCDHt1000toInf 370 pb 1.1 M 2.9 fb-1

Note.1: 10 TeV samplesNote.2: Summer08 Pythia6 for signal SUSY Light Mass test points (LMX), Fall08 MadGraph for the ttbar, Summer08 MadGraph for the Wjets and the Zjets, Fall08 MadGraph for QCDs Note.3: PAT Layer 1 Files produced with V5.

3

https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/CMS/SusyPatLayer1DefV5

Note1; Just counting numbers of the generated particles (who has some daughters).Note2; Br(0 -> ) = 96% in the LM2Note3; pair can be generated without stau. (e.x. 0

2 ->

Generated particles

~ ~

4

Light mass test points m0 m1/2 tan sign() A0

LM1 60 GeV 250 GeV 10 + 0LM2 185 GeV 350 GeV 35 + 0

~ ~

Generated Pt spectrumin the signal decay chain

Note: momentum are the generated Pt. (It is NOT the visible Pt.)

~

0 2 ~ ~

1

0

5

Reconstructed Missing Et (1)

Without any cut(They are PAT default outputs.)

MET MET

6

Reconstructed Missing Et (2)

With basic criteria:● pair requirement, both with Pt> 5 GeV/c (PAT default) and || < 2.0● HT > 500 GeV (HT = All jets Et sum in the default PAT)● Leading jet Et > 50 GeV

MET MET

7

Reconstructed HT (1)(all jets Et sum in default PAT)


HTHT

8

Reconstructed HT (2)(all jets Et sum in default PAT)

With basic criteria:● pair requirement, both with Pt> 5 GeV/c (PAT default) and || < 2.0● MET > 200 GeV ● Leading jet Et > 50 GeV

HTHT

9

Reconstructed Leading Jet Et (1)

10

Without any cut(They are the leading jet in PAT default outputs.)

Leading jet Et Leading jet Et

Reconstructed Leading Jet Et (2)

11

With basic criteria:● pair requirement, both with Pt> 5 GeV/c (PAT default) and || < 2.0 ● MET > 200 GeV ● HT > 500 GeV

Leading jet Et Leading jet Et

Optimization method(tests for statistical effects)

S = #( LMx opposite sign pairs) - #( LMx same sign pairs)

S + B = #( LMx opposite sign pairs) + #( LMx same sign pairs) + #( ttbar opposite sign pairs) + #( ttbar same sign pairs) + #(Wjets opposite sign pairs) + #(Wjets same sign pairs) + #(Zjets opposite sign pairs) + #( Zjets same sign pairs) + #( QCD opposite sign pairs) + #( QCD same sign pairs)

Note.0: This is not taking other pair backgrounds (in signal LMx) into account. (e.x. Z0 -> etc.)Note.1: This is assuming that the same sign pair roughly corresponds to the combinatorial background. (Please see backup slides)Note.2: All MC are normalized to 1fb-1

Note.3: This considers only statistical uncertainty.

Maximizing the significance, S / sqrt(S+B).

12

Missing Et optimization test

13

With basic cuts:● Tau pair requirement, both with Pt > 5 GeV/c (PAT default), || < 2.0 ● HT > 500 GeV● Leading jet Et > 50 GeV

Missing Et

HT optimization test

14

With basic cuts:● Tau pair requirement, both with Pt > 5 GeV/c (PAT default), || < 2.0 ● MET > 200 GeV● Leading jet Et > 50 GeV

HT

Pt optimization test

15

With basic cuts:● Tau pair requirement, both with || < 2.0● Another Pt > 5 GeV/c (PAT default)● MET > 200 GeV ● HT > 500 GeV● Leading jet Et > 50 GeV

Primary Pt

Secondary Pt

pseudo-rapidity optimization test

16

With basic cuts:● Tau pair requirement, both with Pt > 5 GeV/c (PAT default)● MET > 200 GeV ● HT > 500 GeV● Leading jet Et > 50 GeV

t for n-jets (1)

HT

t(n)

t(n) cut

HT cut

MET cut

Schematic view

17

The t for n-jets is effectively just a function of HT and MET.

t(n) = HT / sqrt ( HT2 – MET2 ) = 1 / sqrt ( 1 – ( MET / HT )2 )

➔ In fact, this is effectively just MET/HT.

Note: A mis-measurement of the leading Et will change both the MET and the HT with the same direction. Thus, a variable which divides one by the other is stable somehow.

t for n-jets (2)

Without any cut

With basic cuts: |()| < 2.5, one Pt(> 20 GeV/c and another Pt(> 5 GeV/c,

18

t for n-jets (3)

With HT cut: |()| < 2.5, one Pt(> 20 GeV/c and another Pt(> 5 GeV/c, Leading jet Et > 150 GeV, HT > 500 GeV

19

t for n-jets (4)

20

With HT cut and after MET cut: |()| < 2.5, one Pt(> 20 GeV/c and another Pt(> 5 GeV/c, Leading jet Et > 150 GeV, HT > 500 GeV MET > 150GeV

Statistical point of view, the t (n) does not gain (compared with the MET cut).

Backup;Summary table (SUSY LMx)

LM1 LM2 LM11

#events used 105k events 130k events 208k eventsCross section 16.1 pb 2.4 pb 3.2 pbLuminosity correspondGenerated #signal decay 20094 47526 72281

8127 3683 12191 6045 26698 13179 (86%)6956 (81%)2986 (88%)10761 (85%)5125 (87%)23203 (84%)11035

MET > 200 GeV (51%)3521 (52%)1552 (61%)6541 (61%)3114 (54%)12506 (54%)5961 HT > 500 GeV (88%)3112 (89%)1379 (94%)6163 (95%)2965 (95%)11932 (96%)5738Leading Jet Et > 50 GeV (100%)3112 (100%)1379 (100%)6163 (100%)2965 (100%)11932 (100%)5738

478 +/- 9 212 +/- 6 113 +/- 2 55 +/- 1 186 +/- 2 90 +/- 2

6.51 fb-1 54.3 fb-1 64 fb-1

opposite sign pairs same sign pairs Opposite sign pairs Same sign pairs Opposite sign pairs Same sign pairs

PAT pairs|eta()| < 2.0

Normalized to 1 fb-1

21

Note; The leading jet Et requirement is not effective after the HT cut. (please see backup slides.) I'm applying a minimum cut since I suppose that a standard trigger will be using some cut

Backup;Summary table (backgrounds (1))

TTJets Wjets Zjets

#events used 947 k events 9.26 M events 1.26 M eventsCross section 317 pb 40000 pb 3700 pbLuminosity correspond

TTJets opposite sign TTJets same sign Wjets opposite sign Wjets same sign Zjets opposite sign Zjets same sign

44762 13897 68328 42784 273434 17462 (78%)34751 (67%)9260 (62%)42337 (59%)25304 (70%)190478 (59%)10331

MET > 200 GeV (0.8%) 294 (1.1%)98 (0.04%)14 (0.03%)6 (0.006%)11 (<0.03%) 0 HT > 500 GeV (55%) 162 (63%)62 (43%)6 0 (40%)4 0Leading Jet Et > 50 GeV (100%)162 (100%)62 (100%)6 0 (100%)4 0

54 +/- 5 21 +/- 3 26 +/- 11 (<10) 12 +/- 6 ( <7)

3.0 fb-1 0.23 fb-1 0.34 fb-1



22

Backup;Summary table (backgrounds (2))

QCD100to250 QCD250to500 QCD500to1000

#events used 12.7 M events 5.06 M events 4.69 M events 1.07 M eventsCross section 400 nb 14000 pb 370 pbLuminosity correspond

Opposite sign Same sign Opposite sign Same sign Opposite sign Same sign Opposite sign Same sign

8382 7606 4314 3917 3737 3577 845 767 (52%) 4372 (50%) 3815 (51%) 2219 (50%) 1972 (52%) 1956 (51%) 1837 (60%) 510 (54%) 416

MET > 200 GeV (<0.06%) 0 (<0.07%) 0 (<0.2%) 0 (<0.2%) 0 (<0.2%) 0 (<0.2%) 0 (0.4%) 2 (<0.6%) 0 HT > 500 GeV 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0Leading Jet Et > 50 GeV 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0

(<1) (<1) (<1) (<1) (<1) (<1) 1 (<1)

QCD1000toInf

15 b 0.84 pb-1 13 pb-1 335 pb-1 2.88 fb-1



Note: In order to normalize to 1fb-1, I estimated by probabilities from Missing Et distributions without requirement. It means that this assumes less correlation between events and general events. (Please see backup slides.)

23

M() distributions● |()| < 2.0, Pt(> 5 GeV/c, ● HT > 500 GeV, ● MET > 200 GeV, ● Leading jet Et > 50 GeV

24

Note.1; The peak around 90 GeV in the LM4 would be a double misidentification of Z0 -> e+e- (or Z0 -> as Z0 -> . Those fake contaminations should be estimated.Note.2; pair can be generated without stau. (For example, 0

2 -> orZetc.

For the exclusive stau search, we have to estimate these backgrounds.

~~

ABCD method test (under study) (1) [ttbar, W jets, Z jets and QCD at 1fb-1]

● Tau pairs with Pt(> 5 GeV/c ● MET > 200 GeV ● Leading jet Et > 50 GeV

1.0fb-1

#opposite sign pairs

25

HT GeV

larger

2.0

50 500 (leading jet Et limit)

A)ttbar; 9.7 +/- 1.8Wjet; 30 +/- 12Zjet; 8.8 +/- 5.1QCD; < 1total; 49 +/- 13

B)ttbar; 14 +/- 2.2Wjet; 26 +/- 11Zjet; 2.9 +/- 2.9QCD; < 1total; 43 +/- 12

C)ttbar; 43 +/- 3.8Wjet; 35 +/- 12Zjet; 21 +/- 8QCD; < 2total; 99 +/- 15

D) signal regionttbar; 54 +/- 4.2Wjet; 26 +/- 11Zjet; 12 +/- 6QCD; < 2total; 92 +/- 13

0

The estimated number in the signal region D is,D = B/A x C = 43/49 x 99 = 87 +/- 35 (Good agreement with the true number 92 +/- 13)

Control region definitionsare not yet optimized at all.

ABCD method test (under study) (2) [SUSY signal contamination]


SUSY 1.0fb-1


26

HT GeV

larger

2.0


A) LM0; 31 +/- 5 LM7; 0.3 +/- 0.1LM1; 11 +/- 2 LM8; 0.3 +/- 0.1LM2; 0.8 +/- 0.2 LM9; 0.7 +/- 0.2LM3; 1.8 +/- 0.4 LM10; 3.5 +/- 0.4LM4; 1.3 +/- 0.9 LM11; 1.5 +/- 0.2LM5; 0.2 +/- 0.05 W / Z / ttbar B.G.;LM6; 0.6 +/- 0.08 49 +/-13

0

B) LM0; 126+/- 9 LM7; 2.7 +/- 0.3LM1; 64 +/- 4 LM8; 12 +/- 0.4LM2; 14 +/- 0.5 LM9; 8.3 +/- 0.7LM3; 26 +/- 2 LM10; 5.4 +/- 0.4LM4; 17 +/- 1.0 LM11; 25 +/- 0.7LM5; 5.0 +/- 0.3 W / Z / ttbar B.G.;LM6; 7.3 +/- 0.3 43 +/-12 C)

LM0;138 +/- 9 LM7; 1.0 +/- 0.2LM1; 62 +/- 4 LM8; 1.7 +/- 0.2LM2; 6.7 +/- 0.4 LM9; 3.1 +/- 0.4LM3; 9.8 +/- 0.9 LM10; 17 +/- 1.4LM4; 5.8 +/- 0.6 LM11; 8.7+/- 0.4LM5; 1.5 +/- 0.2 W / Z / ttbar B.G.;LM6; 3.8 +/- 0.2 99 +/-15

D) signal regionLM0; 590 +/- 18 LM7; 15 +/- 1LM1; 479 +/- 9 LM8; 64 +/- 1LM2; 114 +/- 2 LM9; 40 +/- 2LM3; 140 +/- 4 LM10; 34 +/- 1LM4; 90 +/- 3 LM11; 186+/- 2LM5; 28 +/- 1 W / Z / ttbar B.G.;LM6; 53 +/- 1 92 +/-13

Signal SUSY contaminate control regions. (It depends on the mSUGRA parameter points.)


Status summary● We tested basic criteria in di-tau final states. (in 10 TeV MC)

● We testes a less correlated ABCD method, () vs HT.

– It works well for SM backgrounds. However, signal SUSY events contaminate backgrounds control regions.

● Next interests

– Optimization of control region definition – Using other variable combination for an ABCD method– Estimation of Z0 -> background in signal SUSY events– Updating with 7 TeV MC

Backups slides

Summary table(very preliminary, just a current status)

Reconstructed SUSY Reconstructed ttbar/W/Z Reconstructed SUSY + ttbar/W/Z Estimated ttbar/W/Z with SUSY contamination Excess Sigma (stat.)

LM0 590 +/- 18 92 +/- 13 682 +/- 22 501 +/- 103 181 +/- 105 1.7LM1 479 +/- 9 92 +/- 13 581 +/- 16 287 +/- 77 294 +/- 79 3.7LM2 114 +/- 2 92 +/- 13 206 +/- 13 121 +/- 43 85 +/- 45 1.9LM3 140 +/- 4 92 +/- 13 232 +/- 14 148 +/- 50 84 +/- 52 1.6LM4 90 +/- 3 92 +/- 13 182 +/- 14 125 +/- 45 57 +/- 47 1.2LM11 186 +/- 2 92 +/- 13 278 +/- 13 145 +/- 50 133 +/- 52 2.6

Note.1; Uncertainties of excess are dominant by W jet and Z jet MC statistics. (Therefore, significances are not prospects at 1fb-1 in real data.)Note.2; The cut values (HT etc.) are optimized for the LM1 signal MC.Note.3; Control regions are not yet optimized at all.

Backup; All generated stau1

Reconstructed PAT Pt spectrum (1)

31


Reconstructed PAT Pt spectrum (2)

32

With basic criteria:● pair requirement, both with |()| < 2.0 ● MET > 200 GeV, ● HT > 500 GeV ● Leading Jet Et > 50 GeV

Note: Each di-tau has two different entries.

Reconstructed PAT pseudo-rapidity (1)

33


Reconstructed PAT pseudo-rapidity(2)

34

With basic criteria:● pair requirement, both with Pt > 5.0 GeV/c (PAT default) ● MET > 200 GeV, ● HT > 500 GeV ● Leading Jet Et > 50 GeV

Note: Each di-tau has two different entries.

Backup;One tighter Pt help ?

With basic cuts: |()| < 2.5, another Pt(> 20 GeV/c,

HT > 500 GeV, MET > 150 GeV, Leading jet Et > 150 GeV

35

Primary Pt

Secondary Pt

Note; Systematic uncertainty will increase.

Backup;Leading jet (after HT cut) help ? (1)

Leading Jet Et

With very basic cuts: |()| < 2.5, one Pt(> 20 GeV/c and another Pt(> 5 GeV/c, HT > 500 GeV (optimized for LM1, not for LM2 ), MET > 150 GeV

36

Backup;Leading jet (after HT cut) help ? (2)

Leading Jet Et

With very basic cuts: |()| < 2.5, one Pt(> 20 GeV/c and another Pt(> 5 GeV/c, HT > 700 GeV (optimized for LM2, not for LM1 ), MET > 150 GeV

37

Backup; Leading jet (after HT cut) help ? (3)

HT

Without leading jet Et: |()| < 2.5, one Pt(> 20 GeV/c and another Pt(> 5 GeV/c, MET > 150 GeV

38

Backup; Leading jet (after HT cut) help ? (4)

HT

With leading jet Et: |()| < 2.5, one Pt(> 20 GeV/c and another Pt(> 5 GeV/c, MET > 150 GeV, Leading jet Et > 150 GeV

39

Backup;Jet multiplicity help ? (1)

HT

With jet multiplicity: |()| < 2.5, one Pt(> 20 GeV/c and another Pt(> 5 GeV/c, MET > 150 GeV, Leading jet Et > 150 GeV, #Jets(Et >50GeV) >=2

40

Backup;Jet multiplicity help ? (2)

HT

With additional cut: |()| < 2.5, one Pt(> 20 GeV/c and another Pt(> 5 GeV/c, MET > 150 GeV, Leading jet Et > 150 GeV, #Jets(Et >50GeV) >=3

41

Backup; ReconstructedJet (Et > 50 GeV) multiplicity

Without cut With basic cuts

With basic cuts: |()| < 2.5, one Pt(> 20 GeV/c and another Pt(> 5 GeV/c, HT > 500 GeV, MET > 150 GeV, Leading jet Et > 150 GeV

42

Note; The Z jet events survived only 4 events after cut. (It was normalized by a factor ~3.)

Backup;t for n-jets (5)

Without HT and MET: |()| < 2.5, one Pt(> 20 GeV/c and another Pt(> 5 GeV/c, Leading jet Et > 150 GeV

43

Backup; M() distributions

● |()| < 2.0, Pt(> 5 GeV/c, ● HT > 500 GeV, ● MET > 200 GeV, ● Leading jet Et > 50 GeV

44

● |()| < 2.0, Pt(> 5 GeV/c, ● HT > 500 GeV, ● Without MET cut● Leading jet Et > 50 GeV

CMS Standard tau reconstruction

5 GeV/c

R < 0.1

0.15 < R < 0.5 (Photon Pt > 1.5 GeV)

0.10 < R < 0.5 (Charged track Pt > 1 GeV)

ABCD method discussion;Which variable is better ?

Basic cuts (please see backup slides for the optimization) ● |()| < 2.0 ● Pt(> 5 GeV/c [PAT default]● HT > 500 GeV ● MET > 200 GeV ● Leading jet Et > 50 GeV [ This leading jet Et requirement is not effective after the HT cut. (please see backup slides as well.) I'm applying a minimum cut since I suppose that a standard trigger will be using some cut.]

✔ In order to estimate ttbar/Wjet/Zjets which survive eventually, QCD backgrounds should be suppressed even in control regions. Then, the MET cut would be applied even for control regions. Therefore, I don't use the MET as the ABCD method variable.✔ Pt() is using the PAT minimum value. I don't have a control region.✔ HT and the leading jet Et are highly correlated. I can use only one of them.✔ The leading jet is highly correlated with the leading jet Et. It means that the leading jet is also highly correlated with the HT. Therefore I did not use the leading jet in this time.

➔Tested “ () vs HT”46

ABCD method test (1) [ttbar]● Tau pairs with Pt(> 5 GeV/c ● MET > 200 GeV ● Leading jet Et > 50 GeV

HT GeV

larger in pair

2.0


A) 29

B) 42

C) 130

D) signal region 162

3.0fb-1 ttbar #opposite sign pairs

By assuming the ratio A:B = C:D,the estimated number in the signal region D is,D = B/A x C = 42/29 x 130 = 188 +/- 48. (Good agreement with the true number 162.)

0

47


ABCD method test (2) [ttbar consistency check]


HT GeV

2.0

A) 1375

B) 360

C) 5144


3.0fb-1 ttbar#opposite sign pairs

The estimated number in the signal region D is,D = B/A x C = 360/1375 x 5144 = 1347 +/- 82. (Good agreement with the true number 1406.)

0

48

larger




HT GeV

2.0

A) 17

B) 31

C) 35

D) signal region 62

3.0fb-1 ttbar #same sign pairs

The estimated number in the signal region D is,D = B/A x C = 31/17 x 35 = 64 +/- 22. (Good agreement with the true number 62.)

0

49

larger




HT GeV

2.0

A) 534

B) 208

C) 1094


3.0fb-1 ttbar#same sign pairs

The estimated number in the signal region D is,D = B/A x C = 208/534 x 1094 = 426 +/- 37. (Fair (2.1) from the true number 504. )

0

50

larger


ABCD method test (5) [W jets]


HT GeV

larger

2.0


A) 7

B) 6

C) 8

D) signal region 6

0.23fb-1 W jets#opposite sign pairs

The estimated number in the signal region D is,D = B/A x C = 6/7 x 8 = 6.9 +/- 4.5. (Less statistics, but looks reasonable. )

0

51

ABCD method test (6) [W jets consistency check]


HT GeV

larger

2.0


A) 196

B) 13

C) 334

D) signal region 28

0.23fb-1 W jets#opposite sign pairs

The estimated number in the signal region D is,D = B/A x C = 13/196 x 334 = 22.2 +/- 6.5 (Good agreement with the true number 28.)

0

52

ABCD method test (7) [Z jets]● Tau pairs with Pt(> 5 GeV/c ● MET > 200 GeV ● Leading jet Et > 50 GeV

HT GeV

larger

2.0


A) 3

B) 1

C) 7

D) signal region 4

0.34fb-1 Z jets#opposite sign pairs

The estimated number in the signal region D is,D = B/A x C = 1/3 x 7 = 2.3 +/- 2.8. (Less statistics, but looks reasonable. )

0

53

ABCD method test (8) [Z jets consistency check]


HT GeV

larger

2.0


A) 103

B) 9

C) 164

D) signal region 21

0.34fb-1 Z jets#opposite sign pairs

The estimated number in the signal region D is,D = B/A x C = 9/103 x 164 = 14.3 +/- 5.1 (Fair (1.3) agreement with the true number 21. )

0

54


QCD100to250 0.84pb-1


55

HT GeV

larger

2.0


A) 0

B) 0

C)

0

D) signal region

0

0

ABCD method test (10)[QCD (100GeV<HT<250GeV) contamination]


● Tau pairs with Pt(> 5 GeV/c ● Without MET cut ● Leading jet Et > 50 GeV

QCD100to250 0.84pb-1


56

HT GeV

larger

2.0


A) 3052

B) 1

C)

3363

D) signal region

2

0


QCD100to250 0.84pb-1


57

HT GeV

larger

2.0


A) 3052

B) 1

C)

3363

D) signal region

2

0

● Without pair requirement● Leading jet Et > 50 GeV

QCD100to250 0.84pb-1

0 event

9718049 events


“ MET > 200 GeV probability”, 2.3 / 9718049 = 2.4 x 10-7 (90% C.L.)

● Tau pairs with Pt(> 5 GeV/c ● Applied “MET > 200 GeV probability” ● Leading jet Et > 50 GeV

QCD100to250 0.84pb-1


58

HT GeV

larger

2.0


A) < 7.2 x 10-4

B) < 2.4 x 10-7

C)

< 8.1 x 10-4

D) signal region

< 4.8 x 10-7

0

QCD100to250 0.84pb-1

0 event

9718049 events


Note; This is very rough estimation.(Not taking any correlation into accounts.)




QCD100to250 1.0fb-1


59

HT GeV

larger

2.0


A) < 0.85

B) < 0.29

C)

< 0.96

D) signal region

< 0.57

0

QCD100to250 0.84pb-1

0 event

9718049 events






QCD250to500 13pb-1


60

HT GeV

larger

2.0


A) 0

B) 0

C) 0

D) 0

0

Backup; ABCD method test (11) [QCD (250GeV<HT<500GeV) contamination]

Backup; ABCD method test (11)[QCD (250GeV<HT<500GeV) contamination]


QCD250to500 13pb-1


61

HT GeV

larger

2.0


A) 1768

B) 326

C) 1883

D) 336

0



QCD250to500 13pb-1


62

HT GeV

larger

2.0


A) 1768

B) 326

C) 1883

D) 336

0

QCD250to500 13pb-1

0 event

5062455 events




QCD250to500 13pb-1


63

HT GeV

larger

2.0


A) < 7.9 x 10-4

B) < 1.5 x 10-7

C)

< 8.5 x 10-4

D)

< 1.5 x 10-7

0

QCD250to500 13pb-1

0 event

5062455 events






QCD250to500 1.0fb-1


64

HT GeV

larger

2.0


A) < 0.06

B) < 0.01

C)

< 0.07

D)

< 0.01

0

QCD250to500 13pb-1

0 event

5062455 events






QCD500to1000 0.33fb-1


65

HT GeV

larger

2.0


A) 0

B) 0

C) 0

D) 0

0



QCD500to1000 0.33fb-1


66

HT GeV

larger

2.0


A) 6

B) 1774

C) 8

D) 1948

0



QCD500to1000 0.33fb-1


67

HT GeV

larger

2.0


A) 6

B) 1774

C) 8

D) 1948

0


QCD500to1000 0.33fb-1

315 events

4690403 events

“ MET > 200 GeV probability” , 315 / 4690403 = 6.7 x 10-5



QCD500to1000 0.33fb-1


68

HT GeV

larger

2.0


A) 4.0 x 10-4

B) 0.12

C) 5.4 x 10-4

D) 0.13

0


QCD500to1000 0.33fb-1

315 events

4690403 events





QCD500to1000 1.0fb-1


69

HT GeV

larger

2.0


A) 1.2 x 10-3

B) 0.36

C) 1.6 x 10-3

D) 0.39

0

Backup; ABCD method (12) [QCD (500GeV<HT<1000GeV) contamination]

QCD500to1000 0.33fb-1

315 events

4690403 events





QCD1000toInf 2.9fb-1


70

HT GeV

larger

2.0


A) 0

B) 2

C) 0

D) 2

0

Backup; ABCD method test (13) [QCD (1000GeV<HT<Infinity) contamination]

● Tau pairs with Pt(> 5 GeV/c ● Without MET cut● Leading jet Et > 50 GeV



71

HT GeV

larger

2.0


A) 0

B) 344

C) 0

D) 510

0


● Tau pairs with Pt(> 5 GeV/c ● Without MET cut● Leading jet Et > 50 GeV



72

HT GeV

larger

2.0


A) 0

B) 344

C) 0

D) 510

0



2664 events

1064199 events

“ MET > 200 GeV probability”, 2664 / 1064199 = 2.5 x 10-3


● Tau pairs with Pt(> 5 GeV/c ● Applied “MET > 200 GeV probability”● Leading jet Et > 50 GeV



73

HT GeV

larger

2.0


A)< 5.8 x 10-3

B) 0.86

C) < 5.8 x 10-3

D) 1.3

0



2664 events

1064199 events




● Tau pairs with Pt(> 5 GeV/c ● Applied “MET > 200 GeV probability”● Leading jet Et > 50 GeV



74

HT GeV

larger

2.0


A) < 2.0 x 10-3

B) 0.30

C) < 2.0 x 10-3

D) 0.45

0



2664 events

1064199 events




ABCD method test (11) [QCD at 1fb-1]

● Tau pairs with Pt(> 5 GeV/c ● Applied “ MET > 200 GeV probability”● Leading jet Et > 50 GeV

QCD 1.0fb-1


75

HT GeV

larger

2.0


A)HT100to250; <0.85HT250to500; <0.06HT500to1000; 1.2x10-3

HT1000toInf; <2.0x10-3

Total; < 1

0

B)HT100to250; <0.29HT250to500; <0.01HT500to1000; 0.36HT1000toInf; 0.30 Total; < 1

C)HT100to250; <0.96HT250to500; <0.07HT500to1000; 1.6x10-3

HT1000toInf; <2.0x10-3

Total; < 2

D) signal regionHT100to250; <0.57HT250to500; <0.01HT500to1000; 0.39HT1000toInf; 0.45 Total; < 2

Note; This is very rough estimation for individual A, B, C or D, since MET and HT are correlated. However, ABCD sum is not so bad estimation. (though just in this MC)


Backup; HT low energy bump

Without cut

Only with leading jet Et cut: Leading jet Et > 150 GeV 1st Jet Et > 150 GeV

Note: The bump would be the case of that the real leading jet is out of the detector acceptance.76

Backup;Reconstructed multiplicity

Without any cut (It is PAT- default.)

77

Backup:Discussion for combinatorics

(Case of three charged tracks)

+ +++ 1/4 0 3 0 3/4 + normalized

-+ ++- + or 3/4 2 1 3/2 3/4 - +-- -

Three uniformcharged tracks,

combination probability #opposite #same #opposite #same sign pairs sign pairs sign pairs sign pairs

3/2 3/2

This is equal only whenP(+++):P(++- or +--) = 1/4:3/4.

sum(and charge conjugate)

78


(Case of three charged tracks)

+ +++ 1/4 0 3 0 3/4 + normalized

-+ ++- + or 3/4 2 1 3/2 3/4 - +-- -

Three uniformcharged tracks,

combination probability #opposite #same #opposite #same sign pairs sign pairs sign pairs sign pairs

3/2 3/2

This is equal only whenP(+++):P(++- or +--) = 1/4:3/4.

In fact, this probability assumption may not be correct due to the initial pp charge constraint.

sum(and charge conjugate)

79


(general case)Just repeated the same calculation with the previous slide for different cases.

● #tracks = 2 case, #opposite sign pair = 1

#same sign pair = 1

● #tracks = 3 case, #opposite sign pair = 3 [ Twice (charge conjugate) of

#same sign pair = 3 the previous slide.]


#same sign pair = 6


#same sign pair = 10

80In any case, #opposite sign pairs = #same sign pairs.

SUSY in di-tau final states · MC samples Sample Cross section Events used Luminosity correspond...

Documents

Transcript of SUSY in di-tau final states · MC samples Sample Cross section Events used Luminosity correspond...